BASF licenses Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) technology from LiFePO4+C for Li-ion batteries
14 March 2012
BASF, through its global Battery Materials business unit, has signed a long-term licensing agreement to acquire global rights for the production and sale of Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) battery materials technology from LiFePO4+C Licensing AG, Muttenz, Switzerland, an affiliate of Clariant AG. LiFePO4+C Licensing represents the patent owners for this technology: Hydro-Québec (Montréal); Université de Montréal; and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS, Paris). (Earlier post.)
The LFP patent rights associated with BASF’s agreement with LiFePO4+C provide exclusive, worldwide protection for LFP technology; patents on the invention of basic LFP materials; carbon coating patents usable with LFP materials; and carbon coating process patents.
LFP is an cathode material used in the production of advanced lithium-ion batteries (LiBs). LFP cathode materials can be used in all types of LiBs and are best suited for high-power applications such as hybrid vehicles (HV) and grid storage batteries. The addition of LFP intellectual property rights to its battery materials portfolio provides a strong complement to BASF’s current activities in Nickel-Cobalt-Manganese (NCM) cathode materials—licensed from Argonne National Laboratory—for LiBs. (Earlier post.)
As a result of our agreement with LiFePO4+C, BASF becomes the only company worldwide that is licensed to produce and market LiB materials by both the Argonne National Laboratory—the global leader in NCM technology—and LiFePO4+C—which licenses a leading patent portfolio in LFP technology. This provides us with an important competitive advantage and positions BASF to meet the full range of battery materials needs for LiB applications.
—Ralf Meixner, Senior Vice President of BASF’s global Battery Materials business unit
BASF, through its production processes and intellectual property, has the capability to cost-effectively produce LFP materials in pilot scale with excellent electrochemical properties and a high degree of product consistency. BASF plans to expand its LFP production capacity within the next years to complement its NCM manufacturing operations, which are expected to reach commercial production scale in the fourth quarter of 2012.
As a result of these initiatives, BASF is building up a broad coverage of battery materials technology to enable the future of electromobility, supporting its long-term objective of becoming the leading provider of functional materials and components to serve cell and battery manufacturers worldwide.
Too many patents/global rights in too few hands.
Today's EV's struggle with 75 mile range certification. Dozen year old RAV4 EVs were certified at over 100 miles charge range. Several, including Shai Agassi's, are still commuting to Better Place on the Stanford campus.
Posted by: kelly | 14 March 2012 at 10:41 AM
It would be good if patents were harder to get and last for a shorter period of time. When start up companies have to pay lawyers more than engineers to watch out for legal actions, we have hit a new low.
Posted by: SJC | 14 March 2012 at 11:24 AM
The entire patent process has swung wildly to far in favor of the patent owners (too easy to get, to long, to restrictive against others, too many resulting lawsuits, monopolizing or even destroying markets...e.g. Ovonics).
It is time to swing the pendulum back towards the consumers for a while. You know, the people who do without so a few can get silly rich.
I'm no socialist, but there has to be a better balance.
Posted by: DaveD | 14 March 2012 at 11:53 AM
There are numerous cathode materials. The rights to the argonne patents are not exclusive and I doubt the hydro-quebec rights are exclusive either. Other materials will likely beat these two (NMC and LiPO4-C) in energy density and cost eventually. Yes, the rights slow things down, but the biggest thing that needs to happen to get battery technology impacting our society in a positive way is to get someone (a car company) to actually build and price a plug-in or EV at quantity levels. 10K is not enough. Someone has to price the cars at a quantity level and deliver that many vehicles. Quantity production will get the cost of batteries down and other components and make the cost of ownership for EV a net positive. You see, some people can do the math. $39K for a plug-in or EV is a price for early adopters.
Posted by: Brotherkenny4 | 14 March 2012 at 12:44 PM
Nice move from BASF. Still, wondering on the value creation for customers with such an IP control driven strategy (ANL, Ovonic, HQ all in a few months). I doubt they will sell cathodes cheap enough to reach the US/Wh that the xEV world is running after.
Let's hope they will play it smarter than the oil companies in the previous EV wave.
Posted by: D | 14 March 2012 at 01:43 PM
Is this good or bad news for affordable future EVs? Could be both?
Posted by: HarveyD | 14 March 2012 at 02:24 PM
History shows that Standard Oil controlling oil or ATT controlling communications lead to monopoly prices and corruption. Even anti-trust laws can't fully protect the public from repeat felons.
It's not hard to guess where Monsanto controlling food seeds or China controlling rare earth metals or someone controlling battery chemicals/patents etc. will lead.
Posted by: kelly | 14 March 2012 at 03:10 PM
I understand why BASF did this, it clears the way of uncertainty, business likes a sure thing, it makes planning more accurate.
On the whole it is probably a good thing for EVs, this is a good company that plans to do big things with advanced batteries.
Posted by: SJC | 14 March 2012 at 03:50 PM
Nice dreams, but "..business likes a sure thing," is the point.
Too much human temptation. Sorta like giving bonuses for junk home loans make by banks, leading to $700 billion TARP theft and global financial meltdown.
This good company also produced Zyklon-B and is cooperating with Monsanto Company in research, development, and marketing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASF
Posted by: kelly | 14 March 2012 at 05:05 PM
Mitsubishi used to make Japanese Zero fighter planes, so I suppose no one is suppose to buy their cars because that makes them a "bad" company?
Posted by: SJC | 14 March 2012 at 05:22 PM
@ Kelly
Holocaust, holocaust, holocaust, I'm all holocausted out!
Posted by: Mannstein | 14 March 2012 at 05:22 PM
Some folks don't believe in 'what's good for GM/Exxon/.. is good for the country' nor "too big to fail".
Do you really believe these company buyouts and power grabs are for the public good? Sorry, history says otherwise.
Posted by: kelly | 14 March 2012 at 05:49 PM
Being a cynical jerk does not add to the discussion.
Posted by: SJC | 14 March 2012 at 06:12 PM
Your belief in the fairy tale that GM can kill all EVs by crushing its own EV1, puts your view of the patent system in perspective.
Actually it’s sadly in line with many government agencies;
i.e. "meets expectations".
Posted by: ToppaTom | 14 March 2012 at 06:40 PM
More actors in the scene, and BASF is a good actor even if does not have so much experience in this field.
It's just good to the market and will accelerate prices reduction.
In ranking of innovations are often small companies to make strong innovation and arrive before on the market
http://www.luxresearchinc.com/blog/2011/09/ranking-li-ion-battery-developers-on-the-lux-innovation-grid/
The material for cathodes that produces BASF is also used (and improved) by ENVIA and by Toda Kogyo
(which is a giant in ferrous materials applications for electronics)
Posted by: joe.vanni | 15 March 2012 at 01:55 AM
GM crushed their EVs and the CARB laws, which crushed a decade of EV production, subsequent price reductions, and charging infrastructure.
The fairy tale is believing billionaire firms and their 400X average worker CEO/officer salaries have consumer best interests in mind.
Posted by: kelly | 15 March 2012 at 05:32 AM
Well said Kelly. Many of us are very allergic to facts and past historical data. Reading Steve Jobs very recent biography could be beneficial to many non-believers. Bankrupt Bank and GM managers making 200+ times the President's salary is unbelievable but true.
Posted by: HarveyD | 15 March 2012 at 01:17 PM
We need a new corporate tax rate in which CEO and other top level management salaries are not tax deductible for amounts greater than 20x the amount of the lowest paid employee.
And we need new stock-holder rights which require majority approval before corporations can exceed that 20x level for new management hires.
I find it very hard to believe that there aren't people who would do an excellent job of running corporations for far less money than "millions per year".
("20x" is just a throw-out-there number. It might be up or down in application. And I'm not talking about how much a founder/owner might make. Just about the top hired help.)
Posted by: Bob Wallace | 16 March 2012 at 04:05 PM
It is referred to as the "agency problem" the CEO of a large corporation usually does not own the company and is suppose to be accountable to the shareholders.
However with the billions of shares outstanding and few institutions holding enough shares for seats on the board, the CEOs can do pretty much what they want and they know it.
Posted by: SJC | 17 March 2012 at 04:04 PM
One of the worse example of late is the Air Canada CEO with an $80,000,000 bonus for pushing 3,000+ employees out to a dummy maintenance firm and pushing the dummy firm to bankruptcy and the 3000+ ex-Air Canada employees on the streets without pension.
What a dishonest way to fire 3000+ long time employees, embezzle their pension fund and get a $80.000,000 bonus for doing it.
Posted by: HarveyD | 21 March 2012 at 10:03 AM
BASF, through its global Battery Materials business unit, has signed a long-term licensing agreement to acquire global rights for the production and sale of Lithium Sección Amarilla
Posted by: Calvin Brock | 17 December 2012 at 11:02 PM